Reliable historical accounts of Jesus.

a reply to: windword

P52 is the fragment in question....

but even if you want to give it a date of 250 AD, it's still 150 years time span....significantly shorter than MANY of the other "historical" documents that pass reliability standards....

Besides, I didn't even say it was dated to the first century...I said 125 AD lol, that's the 2nd century...
A2D

a reply to: Grimpachi

In that last few posts I have been talking about the article in the OP. Maybe you missed that.

True, I have generally for the most part been reading my replies. If it's the link from the OP, then that's just fine.

Anyway after going through your links that are all heavily biased to reinforce common beliefs it looks to me as they use the bible to prove the bible more than anything so that is to circular for me.

I can't see how it's circular reasoning, the debate at Nicea was about what the Bible taught in it's text. The debate wasn't between someone who believed the Bible and lets say a Muslim or an Atheist. Their entire debate was about Biblical doctrine.

So as I said I think it would be much better if you read the article which is sourced at the beginning of the thread in the OP.

Hi, I'm Ron, nice to meet you. I've been debating Nicaea and doing Christian apologetics for over 15 years. Nothing in the OP is anything I haven't heard someone articulate, or read someone post 100+ times in the past. And that's no offense to you so don't take it that way. This has been a Christian debate,.. well, since Nicaea. lol

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Akragon

According to your link it looks like he was assassinated.

Also according to that there was some conflict as to what would be accepted as the new testament at Nicea.

He was assassinated... poisoned

Ironically the same thing happened to Marcion.... Poisoned by the vipers of the church that were hungry for power

Back then threats to the church were dealt with... just as the gnostic's and their writing

a reply to: Grimpachi

That isn't even the half of it. So when you ask about Paul are you asking about what modern english Bibles claim about Paul or are you referring to what Paul has actually said historically because the two are not the same.

What I didn't ask, was anything in regards to what Paul said.
I'm asking some simple questions of the critics here-in,
with the awareness of what most critical scholars
concede hands down. But the questions I'm asking seem
to be falling on deaf ears. Again, Was Paul a scholar and
was he authoritative

a reply to: Agree2Disagree

The entire passages of Josephus citing anything to do with Christ, the Messiah or Jesus, if he be called a man, is ALL in question. There are Christian apologists that attempt to justify certain passages, but there is no consensus of any truth to any of it.

And Tacitus does nothing to prove the existence of Jesus the Nazarene, Jesus Christ, or Jesus the son of Joseph.

a reply to: randyvs

Saul of Tarsus was a pharisee, a scholar of the "law". He certainly wasn't an authoritarian on Jesus. He never quoted him or mentioned any of works.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

I never said it isn't a christian debate but it isn't exclusive to those who are not Christian either in fact I do believe there are some biblical scholars who are not Christians. Christians can decide what they want to believe is the truth for themselves but as it has been shown just because it is what they want to believe that doesn't mean it is the truth. Perhaps you missed Akragon's post with a link that shows Nicea was more than what most Christians believed it to be. You can't deny there were many different Christian beliefs about Jesus before Nicea yet many different factions were invited some were excluded and it was at that point many things were decided. If you do deny that then I dont care how long you have studied it because it would be obvious that confirmation bias has too much influence on you.

When that happens people will refuse to look at information like what is in the OP from fear of some mental discomfort. Anyway the article is about much more than just Nicea of course you know that.....or do you?

a reply to: Grimpachi

You can't deny there were many different Christian beliefs about Jesus before Nicea

Well, that's pretty obvious, there were different beliefs about Him when He was alive. lol Numerous NT epistles addressed 1st century heresies on salvation and the divinity of Jesus etc, heck and 1st John addressed Gnosticism and Paul likewise addressed it too.

And the sites I linked were about Nicaea and the Arian heresy, you then said those sites were biased and that they used scripture to validate scripture which you felt was "circular". But the debate at Nicaea was between Christians, and arguing over what the Bible taught in it's text. So using the Bible cannot be circular reasoning in that context. It's the foundational document.

a reply to: randyvs

Was Paul a scholar and was he authoritative

I have no idea with what that has to do with the article but I will humor you. As he is depicted he was a scholar by definition because he was a student and learned in what was supposedly Jesus has said. I would say he was authoritative because people believed him to be knowledgeable and listened to him so in both respects I would say yes.

Now that I answered you please afford me the same. Did Paul document his firsthand knowledge and why are the earliest Greek texts of his accounts different from what is found in the Bible today to such a great degree?

a reply to: NOTurTypical

You didn't read the article did you?

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: NOTurTypical

You didn't read the article did you?

No, I can later tonight if you wish. I don't see a point, but if you insist on it.

a reply to: windword

He never quoted him or mentioned any of works.

So here we have Paul considered a scholar, a pharisee
authoritative. One to two years after the cross and on
his way to Damascus. Authored what, 13 books of the Bible?
Whom even Bart Ehrman concedes wouldn't have lied.
And he himself ( Paul ) says, that Jesus appeared to him
lastly, after he appeared to the twelve apostles and the 500
hundred brethren. So we do have a scholarly, authoritative account in
Corinthians that dates back to two or even one year, as many believe,
after the crucifixion. And a list of eyewitness accounts taken by one
in the same. And this is the consensus among scholarly critics.

So how do you or anyone else account this?

Mass hallucinations I suppose?

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: randyvs

Saul of Tarsus was a pharisee, a scholar of the "law". He certainly wasn't an authoritarian on Jesus. He never quoted him or mentioned any of works.

He quoted Him in Acts. "It's better to give than to receive"... you won't find that quote anywhere in the 4 gospels.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: NOTurTypical

You didn't read the article did you?

No, I can later tonight if you wish. I don't see a point, but if you insist on it.

You did say you have been studying Nicea for 15 years I had hoped that meant you were still studying it but if you aren't I wondered when you stopped.

Eve if you have decided to no longer study the subject anymore I do think to have a meaningful conversation on the matter it would be beneficial to read the article in the OP which we are posting in. So I guess we will talk after you had time to digest it.

a reply to: randyvs

So here we have Paul considered a scholar, a pharisee
authoritative. One to two years after the cross and on
his way to Damascus. Authored what, 13 books of the Bible?

I am pretty sure I asked you that same question. Did he actually write any books? Actually I asked if he documented any of his experiences.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Paul is not credited with writing the Acts of the Apostles, Luke is. The book doesn't appear until well after the death of Paul, in the 2nd century.

So, we have Luke, who ever he was, quoting Paul quoting Jesus? Not too convincing.

a reply to: randyvs

Paul never said he saw Jesus. He said that he, supposedly, heard his voice.

I'm not going to argue the resurrection with you here. This is a thread about evidence of the existence of a living Jesus of Nazareth.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Paul is not credited with writing the Acts of the Apostles, Luke is. The book doesn't appear until well after the death of Paul, in the 2nd century.

So, we have Luke, who ever he was, quoting Paul quoting Jesus? Not too convincing.

He said Paul "quoted"" Jesus in Acts, not wrote the book.

You have a pattern of bias and bias leads to ... errors. Be honest, are you searching for the real truth? Bias tends to shape the truth to fit a desired outcome or conclusion. (Don't shoot me, I'm just delivering a message.)

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Paul is not credited with writing the Acts of the Apostles, Luke is. The book doesn't appear until well after the death of Paul, in the 2nd century.

So, we have Luke, who ever he was, quoting Paul quoting Jesus? Not too convincing.

If so that creates a huge problem because there isn't an confirmed case of a truly photographic memory and as far as I seen there has never been a case of a audiographic memory so that Luke person supposedly memorized 3 books worth of stories from paul word for word simply by listing and held those stories for years before writing them down. Like I said that is a big problem.

www.slate.com...

a reply to: windword

Paul never said he saw Jesus. He said that he, supposedly, heard his voice.

Yeah, on the road to Damascus. But he did say he spent 30ish days learning directly from him on Sinai after that. And as a direct disciple of Gameliel he would have been present with him at the illegal trial before the high priest as Gameliel was the head of the Sanhedrin and would have been present for that. But even then there wouldn't have been much Christian doctrine learned at all, except for Jesus claiming to be God in the flesh.